Will the County Lines prevail? (and keep the GOP a less-diverse party)

By Rubashov

The GOP establishment in New Jersey likes to talk about “diversity” but in reality their idea of diversity is a package of the same cultural and economic attitudes wrapped in a different skin color or gender or sexuality. The same tired old wine, but in new bottles.

Real diversity isn’t based on surface differences but on different perspectives -- especially on economic realities. A Trenton lobbyist with dark skin isn’t very different from one with light skin. A female corporate executive is much the same as her male counterpoint or, for that matter, a transgendered corporate executive.

In a notable exchange during the last gubernatorial campaign, Jack Ciattarelli and Phil Murphy went back and forth about the goings on at their respective kitchen tables – forgetting that their kitchen tables have more in common with each other than they do with the average kitchen table in New Jersey.

In its by-laws, the NJGOP recognizes the perspectives of just a handful of groupings, noting that the following “may be invited upon invitation of the State Committee and participate in discussions, but shall not have the right to vote… the President of the New Jersey Federation of Republican Women, Inc.; the Chairman of the Finance Committee; the Chairman of the Black Republicans; the Chairman of the Republican Hispanic Assembly; the Chairman of the Republican Heritage Groups; Chairman of the College Republicans; Chairman of the Teen-Age Republicans; Chairman of the Senior Republicans; State Chairman of the Republican Lawyers Association of New Jersey; Chairman of the New Jersey Republican Asian Assembly.”

Designations by gender, race, ethnicity, and age aside; the chairmen representing these individual groupings could all share the same economic perspective – the same “kitchen table” if you will – shared by Jack and Phil. The only employment designation is that of lawyers – hardly representative of an average perspective anywhere in the world.

Nationally, there is a huge populist upheaval within the electorate, with groups detaching from former loyalties and up for grabs. Is the NJGOP ready to knock on their doors and sit down with them to share the vantage from their kitchen tables?

Some of the NJGOP’s designations just don’t make sense. A “Republican Asian Assembly” makes about as much sense as a Western Hemisphere Assembly would for a political party in India – lumping in U.S. expats with those of Brazil, Chile, Haiti, and Canada. Try figuring out what that “kitchen table’ would look like?

Blue-collar trade union workers have an economic perspective the NJGOP should consider with the same importance they give to lawyers. Working mothers have a unique economic perspective (and there are a lot of them, so if you are going to pander…). Parents of school children have an education policy perspective that fueled last year’s upsets in Virginia. Those concerned with medical freedom have a health and civil rights policy perspective. Wouldn’t it be more practical for the NJGOP to have standing organizations to represent groups that are motivated by these issues of the day?

Missing from the current debate over firearms is the divide by economic class – with wealthy suburbanites wanting to get rid of something they don’t need for personal protection because their communities are safe and well-policed. But if you are in a less than safe neighborhood, with rising violent crime and a demoralized police force, perhaps partially “defunded”, with a police response time that would ensure your untimely death if it came to it, then the perspective from your kitchen table might be a bit different. Wouldn’t it serve the NJGOP to have them represented as a group that could “participate in discussions”?

The county party “line” gets in the way of this. The “line” is designed to replicate what exists. Illegal everywhere else in the world, in New Jersey it is a failsafe to ensure permanent establishment hegemony. It prevents experimentation and diversity. It ultimately makes for a grey, dull, boring, and out-of-touch party. Of course, we could be proven wrong… and we are hoping to be proven wrong.

NJ Spotlight News reports on the Lawsuit against the Party Line.

Al Doblin is speaking from "The Bubble"

Alfred P. Doblin is the Editorial Editor of the Record of Bergen and the surrounding counties.  His writing is strong, with few of the over-the-top emotions that are often on display over at the Star-Ledger.  He appears to try for balance, for persuasion instead of name-calling.      

But we fear he is trapped, as so many others are trapped, in a perception that is based more on geography and on class than on ideology or party identity. 

In his recent column -- "GOP at the crossroads" -- Mr. Doblin falls back on the tired values of an old religion.  Using terms like "mainstream right... extreme right... hard-line conservatives... social issues," we feel that he misses the lessons of the 2016 presidential election.

And who are the people Mr. Doblin turns to in his column to illuminate his argument?  All members of the ruling class:  former Governor Christie Whitman, global lobbyist Mike DuHaime, and Senator Kevin O'Toole Esq.

From them we get the same, tired prescriptions we get after every presidential election -- win or lose:  “(Republicans) can no longer be defined both statewide and nationally as the older white man’s party and expect to succeed (even though they just did)... (Republicans) have to do a lot more to attract females, to attract African-Americans, Asians, Hispanics. We have to be far more diverse than we have in the past.” 

The perspective of these people is one of class.  They are far, far more richer and more prosperous than the average American or the average Republican. When they speak of diversity it is the false diversity of gender, color, ethnicity, or sexual identity.  What is studiously ignored is class. 

In his book, White-Collar Government: The Hidden Role of Class in Economic Policy Making, Duke University's Nick Carnes points out that while upwards of 65 percent of citizens are "working class" and 54 percent are employed in a blue-collar occupation, just 2 percent of the members of Congress and 3 percent of state legislators held blue-collar jobs at the time of their election.  How about some diversity?

Donald Trump's campaign saw through the false political divide of Democrat and Republican to the vast economic and social divide that is the truer measure of America today.  Authors as diverse as George Packer of the New Yorker (The  Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America) to Charles Murray (Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010) to Chris Hedges (Days of Destruction Days of Revolt) to David Brooks (BoBos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There) have written about this, with Brooks actually employing Donald Trump as an example of what the "new upper class" finds unfashionable.  In a prescient piece of writing, Ralph Nader gave an outline of what was coming when his book (Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State) was released in the summer of 2014.

On election night, MSNBC's Chris Matthews came closest to the mark, with this surprising exchange:

Of course, the ruling class will try to fit what happened back into the perception that they are most comfortable with -- and so we get the familiar postscripts about "old white men" and "diversity" of the surface variety.  It is an exercise in virtue signaling, whereby one member of the ruling class assures his "goodness" to another.

White collar America spends its time concerned about issues like the availability of condoms to Ivy Leaguers.  Such concerns are the marks of privilege. Blue collar America, working class America, worries about foreclosure, about housing, about having a job, about getting out of debt, about having enough to give their children the life that they've enjoyed.  With the greatest respect to Christie Whitman and Mike DuHaime and Kevin O'Toole, they don't have those problems.  So relieved of such pressing concerns, they can float above the mass and think sweet thoughts, reaffirming their "goodness" to one another.

The lack of shared experience places much of our ruling class, and those who aspire to it, into a kind of "bubble" -- secure and apart from the mass. Senator O'Toole's statement to Editor Doblin that what he regretted most was not voting for same-sex marriage is a symptom of that "bubble."  The Senator is a wise and judicious man and surely, if he thought about it a bit, he would have said that his greatest regret was not being able to cut property taxes down to a sane level.  For it is property taxes, a major driver of foreclosure and of homelessness, that is the greatest concern to the greatest many.

The idea that some Americans exist in "bubble" communities that vastly outstrip neighboring zip codes in status, wealth, cultural influence, and corporate/political power is not new.  Although now it seems to be going mainstream, filtering into "pop" culture.  Consider this recent skit from Saturday Night Live:

Wealthy professionals, like Al Doblin, should be aware of their class bias.  As a journalist, great care should be taken to seek out and include the opinions of genuine members of the working class for balance -- and not just members of the ruling class who happen to be labeled "diverse" for whatever reason